Apple released their first official statement responding to the DoJ’s antitrust suit against Apple and five major publishers and equates to an eloquently put middle finger.

The DOJ’s accusation of collusion against Apple is simply not true. The launch of the iBookstore in 2010 fostered innovation and competition, breaking Amazon’s monopolistic grip on the publishing industry. Since then customers have benefited from eBooks that are more interactive and engaging. Just as we’ve allowed developers to set prices on the App Store, publishers set prices on the iBookstore. — Apple spokesman Tom Neumayr.

Apple’s response resembles statements issued by Penguin Group and MacMillan, the two publishers named in the suit who haven’t reached a settlement with the DoJ. Apple’s statements reinforce the company’s position of innocence and their plans to fight the suit, and if earlier reports are accurate Apple stands a good chance of winning.

Still, the settlement between the other three publishers means that the “wild west” of e-book sales is back. However, the last statement is a little misleading. Before the App Store there were no apps, but, before iBooks there were e-books on the iOS platform. Apple’s agreement with publishers effectively crippled e-book resellers, and third-party bookstores from selling on the content on the iOS platform. Apple has removed the clause from its agreements that prevents publishers from selling books cheaper outside of the iBookstore, but like I’ve mentioned before, the damage has already been done.

Hmm....If Walmart were to say to Hasbro we will sell your game, but you can't sell it cheaper anywhere else, including directly to the consumer, would we not scream about antitrust laws being violated?

The same holds true here, Apple said you cannot sell an eBook cheaper anywhere else, this is a clear cut violation of antitrust laws being violated.

Here is how it should work, Hasbro goes to Walmart and says we will sell you our game for $5.00 and we recommend you sell it for $10.00, but you get to set the price you sell it for and we will sell it to others as we see fit.

The same should be true for eBooks, the publisher should go to Apple, Amazon, whomever and say we will sell your our book for $5.00 and it is up to you to set the retail price, but we recommend $10.00.

Hmm....If Walmart were to say to Hasbro we will sell your game, but you can't sell it cheaper anywhere else, including directly to the consumer, would we not scream about antitrust laws being violated?

The same holds true here, Apple said you cannot sell an eBook cheaper anywhere else, this is a clear cut violation of antitrust laws being violated.

Here is how it should work, Hasbro goes to Walmart and says we will sell you our game for $5.00 and we recommend you sell it for $10.00, but you get to set the price you sell it for and we will sell it to others as we see fit.

The same should be true for eBooks, the publisher should go to Apple, Amazon, whomever and say we will sell your our book for $5.00 and it is up to you to set the retail price, but we recommend $10.00.

So, I fail to see how Apple did not act illegally here.

You pretty much hit the nail square on the head. This is why anti-trust laws were created in the first place. No single company is supposed to have this sort of control over how vendors sell their products, especially when it comes to how a vendor interacts with other outlets. Back in the 80's, Nintendo did something similar something similar, attempting to prevent (or severely limit) developers from also developing on other platforms, effectively locking out any potential compitition. This too was eventually stopped.